Church influence on independent Ireland

jonniebgood1

To what extent did the Church have power in Ireland post independence?

What examples are there of the church trying to guide people in how they should behave in their daily lives?

Did the church directly or indirectly influence government decisions? How and where?


An example I have recently read about was an attempt to influence what Irish women wore. After a Bishops appeal the 'Mary Immaculate modest dress and deportment Crusade' was formalised into a written document by the Mary Immaculate training college in Limerick. This was a list of rules for womens clothes that asked for skirts of certain length and sleeves of a certain length on the one hand and also asked women to refrain from smoking and 'loud talking or boisterous laughing in public places' *
I wonder to what extent this type of direction was a part of life in this era?

*= http://books.google.ie/books?id=qZ6W1LiIyYYC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=modest+dress+and+deportment+crusade&source=bl&ots=FyYpkMzp3w&sig=5yxsgatHby4hbQdU4BEnMKa4c40&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oLAZT_zqEcGFhQfCpdS9DA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is aimed at discussion of any influence the Church may have had and specifically it is not a criticism of Church or exploration of scandals.

Thanks.

Ostrom

Mike Milotte's Banished Babies cites correspondence between Archbishop McQuid's office and the department of external affairs showing clear direction from the church on the content of the adoption act.

His conditions stipulated that domestic placements and home study reports place special emphasis on speedy placements with Catholic families. Little subsequent regard was paid to the widespread practice of forging birth parent details on certificates, exchange of children for large sums of money to overseas servicemen, the effects of which are still felt today by the church's witholding of adoption records. Apologies for the critique, but it is difficult not to pass some measure of judgement.

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

To what extent did the Church have power in Ireland post independence?

What examples are there of the church trying to guide people in how they should behave in their daily lives?

Did the church directly or indirectly influence government decisions? How and where?


An example I have recently read about was an attempt to influence what Irish women wore. After a Bishops appeal the 'Mary Immaculate modest dress and deportment Crusade' was formalised into a written document by the Mary Immaculate training college in Limerick. This was a list of rules for womens clothes that asked for skirts of certain length and sleeves of a certain length on the one hand and also asked women to refrain from smoking and 'loud talking or boisterous laughing in public places' *
I wonder to what extent this type of direction was a part of life in this era?

*= http://books.google.ie/books?id=qZ6W1LiIyYYC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=modest+dress+and+deportment+crusade&source=bl&ots=FyYpkMzp3w&sig=5yxsgatHby4hbQdU4BEnMKa4c40&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oLAZT_zqEcGFhQfCpdS9DA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is aimed at discussion of any influence the Church may have had and specifically it is not a criticism of Church or exploration of scandals.

Thanks.

To be honest, and without wishing to be rude, I believe that it’s a boring topic because we know the answers. It was all-pervasive and from Ne Temere onwards the slope was downhill. Some of the Church ‘influence’ was quite well received by the laity, whose complacency welcomed it. Crawthumpers. (Now that’s a word I have not used in a long time!) The list is endless, from interference in local matters, the bishop and the nightie, the bishop of Kerry and Jayne Mansfield, the attempts by McQuaid to control the angelus bell at RTE (or, more correctly, RE), etc, etc., ad bloody nauseam. I had a row with a parish priest in the 1980’s and he could not believe that someone actually dared to stand up to him.

MarchDub

Well and also to be historically precise about it all - the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland was not something that sprung suddenly to life with independence. Far from it. The RC church became a factor in Ireland and Irish related politics from the mid nineteenth century. Education for one was a major issue and if Irish Independence rocked that, then Irish independence was not something that the Church supported. Correspondence between the Papacy and the English Conservative Party regarding Irish affairs reveals a very cozy relationship.

When the Irish Party went in the direction of Home Rule - it had to fight with/fight off the Irish Catholic MPs who were against Home Rule. The Catholic Church had established a comfortable relationship with Westminster by the late 19th century so independence had to prove itself to get Catholic Church support.

Manach

Stability. That the Church contributed in a positive way to a stable democratic state - in terms of embracing a common cultural belief system and acting as a damper on fissionable tendancies that blighted nearly all other revolutions.
Once the ill-judged path to independence was trodden, the Church had provided a measure of the social structures that was present both in Ireland and abroad that eased the transitions of economic emigrants that fled the state's early attempts at Autarky and engaging in economic warfare with a world power in the 30s.

MarchDub

Manach wrote: »

Stability. That the Church contributed in a positive way to a stable democratic state - in terms of embracing a common cultural belief system and acting as a damper on fissionable tendancies that blighted nearly all other revolutions.

Absolutely - I agree. That is a positive influence that is greatly overlooked in the easy rush to vilify.

pedroeibar1

Manach wrote: »

Stability. That the Church contributed in a positive way to a stable democratic state - in terms of embracing a common cultural belief system and acting as a damper on fissionable tendancies that blighted nearly all other revolutions.
Once the ill-judged path to independence was trodden, the Church had provided a measure of the social structures that was present both in Ireland and abroad that eased the transitions of economic emigrants that fled the state's early attempts at Autarky and engaging in economic warfare with a world power in the 30s.

I wonder about some of the chosen language in that post.
Did the Church really ‘embrace’ a common cultural belief system? There is a counter argument that it promulgated or even enforced its own system of beliefs and values, from the role (place?) of the woman, contraception and who could attend TCD. Look at the GAA, which the Church tried to control from the outset. While it no longer ‘reads’ people from the altar, that day is not long past (it was done to Mary Robinson as a student).
As for social structure post independence, surely the Church was self-serving, with its delegates not only firmly ensconced in the upper echelons, but loath to leave them? Was the Church behind the Irish Clubs in Britain?

I see no need to vilify the Church for the sake of it; its own behaviour speaks for itself. I feel sorry for most of its priests, who can be compared to the staff of any failed business – wandering about, shell-shocked, wondering how 'it' happened to their great institution.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Well and also to be historically precise about it all - the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland was not something that sprung suddenly to life with independence. Far from it. The RC church became a factor in Ireland and Irish related politics from the mid nineteenth century. Education for one was a major issue and if Irish Independence rocked that, then Irish independence was not something that the Church supported. Correspondence between the Papacy and the English Conservative Party regarding Irish affairs reveals a very cozy relationship.

I wonder the reasons for this. It must have benefitted the British to allow this otherwise they would have fought it more than they did. This had happened before the famine according to this piece by Joe Moran of WIT:

The British government had lost faith in the native Irish political leadership to manage the hordes so an alternative was needed. The Catholic Church took on this role so that ‘(b)y 1845, the Irish Catholic Church had become an independent power bloc to which the British state had decided to bequeath the task of civilising and socially controlling the Irish people’ .
.......
It suited the British governments of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to allow the Catholic Church to engage in educational, health and welfare activities but this did not happen without some conflict, in which the Church always appears to have gained the upper hand (Coolahan, 2003).
http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2010/01/moran/01/en

This makes sense for the most case except that at the same time the state was investing money in a massive program of constructing workhouses. Although I recall that the church were later involved in care given in these facilities.

The same paper also discusses links between social partnership and government and its a good comparison. Maybe social partnership (unions) are now acting in the role that the Church might have fulfilled in the past.

Reekwind

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Did the Church really ‘embrace’ a common cultural belief system? There is a counter argument that it promulgated or even enforced its own system of beliefs and values...

I would broadly agree with this but would put it in the context of the Church's rule on formulating and enforcing a sterile and conservative set of cultural norms. In this the Church was operating alongside the wealthy elite who recoiled at the 'excesses' and radicalism of the War of Independence years. Post-Independence the stifling effect of their dominance prevented any great flowering of civil society and stunted the evolution of the Irish state

jonniebgood1 wrote:

It must have benefitted the British to allow this otherwise they would have fought it more than they did

Even in Ireland the British liked to delegate responsibilities to local parties who were dependably complicit in colonial rule. Effectively outsourcing the entire Irish education and health apparatus to the Church would have significantly reduced the administrative burden on Dublin Castle

And this at the same time as the rest of Europe was secularising education and building up impressive national bureaucracies

pedroeibar1

Reekwind wrote: »

I would broadly agree with this but would put it in the context of the Church's rule on formulating and enforcing a sterile and conservative set of cultural norms. In this the Church was operating alongside the wealthy elite who recoiled at the 'excesses' and radicalism of the War of Independence years. Post-Independence the stifling effect of their dominance prevented any great flowering of civil society and stunted the evolution of the Irish state

Even in Ireland the British liked to delegate responsibilities to local parties who were dependably complicit in colonial rule. Effectively outsourcing the entire Irish education and health apparatus to the Church would have significantly reduced the administrative burden on Dublin Castle

And this at the same time as the rest of Europe was secularising education and building up impressive national bureaucracies

I agreewith MarchDub above - it would be better to look back into the 1800’s – seminaries were set up here with full British support to avoid the influence of Rome and France – particularly St.Omer - and to bring the clergy's political outlook closer to Westminster.
Not sure that I agree with ‘the wealthy elite who recoiled at the 'excesses' and radicalism of the War of Independence years’ – several of the wealthy elite were actively involved (including some of my forebears - well, they had style, if only some money;) ). For example, Kevin Barry was schooled at Belvedere, (as was William Martin Murphy); James O’Mara the Home Rule MP & Sinn Fein TD was an old Clongonian, as were Irish Volunteers' founder The O’Rahilly and P. Pearse’s friend Fr. William Hackett; Dick Humphries also was Clongowes/St. Enda’s. Dev was educated at Blackrock, as was Liam O’Flaherty.

The Church in Ireland was a wealthy elite because it was built firmly on a foundation of that tradition. Seminaries were fee-paying until after the mid 1800’s. Only the wealthy “strong farmers” or merchants could afford the cash costs involved in educating one of their sons in the priesthood with annual fees of £25 for tuition and a similar amount for board & lodging over a sustained period of about 7 years. Although Maynooth College as the national seminary was endowed by the State, all students had to pay their own living expenses and it was not until after the Famine that grants became available. (Priest, Politics & Society in post-Famine Ireland’ , James O’Shea - is the book, ‘tho it concentrates on Tipperary. Don’t have my copy to hand – just a few notes - I have a few relatives mentioned in it.)

Archbishop Croke held the infant GAA together - at the 1887 Annual Congress the IRB candidate, Edward Bennett, defeated Maurice Davin for the Presidency. A Fr. Scanlon of Nenagh, who favoured the Home Rule faction, left the Annual Congress and announced his intention to form a rival athletic association - one that would pledge allegiance to the National League. Archbishop Croke brought both sides together and at a Special Congress in January 1888, Maurice Davin was re-elected as President of the GAA.
Details at http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/History_of_the_Gaelic_Athletic_Association_GAA

The role of the Church was all-pervasive, for good or ill.

I've only experience of France, but they brought in separation of church & state in 1905 and it is still remarkable - social status lines today Ancien Regime or non, are drawn by the school you attended.

boynesider

IMO the influence the Church had on the workings of the state have generally been exaggerated in recent years.

It was undeniably significant but I would stop a long way short of describing it as all-pervasive.

MarchDub

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I've only experience of France, but they brought in separation of church & state in 1905 and it is still remarkable - social status lines today Ancien Regime or non, are drawn by the school you attended.

That's a good point about comparison. France is exceptional I believe because of their own history of the revolution and the anti-clericalism that was so pervasive at that time and became a part of their world view .

Italy for example was quite different. Italy established the Roman Catholic Church as the established church by the 1929 Concordat. This was a way of resolving the dissolution of the Papal States in the prior century. So Catholicism was Italy's official state religion until the 1980s - and even then a modification of the 1929 Concordat still continued to give state financial support for the Catholic Church. But over time this became extended to other religions.

The point is that when looking at the Irish experience with religion it's also important to see what was going on in other countries.

boynesider

Italy for example was quite different. Italy established the Roman Catholic Church as the established church by the 1929 Concordat. This was a way of resolving the dissolution of the Papal States in the prior century. So Catholicism was Italy's official state religion until the 1980s - and even then a modification of the 1929 Concordat still continued to give state financial support for the Catholic Church. But over time this became extended to other religions.

The point is that when looking at the Irish experience with religion it's also important to see what was going on in other countries.[/Quote]


Absolutely. There is a tendency amongst many people to falsely view Modern Ireland's interweavement with a particular organised religion as something not only unique, but uniquely shameful within a wider European context.

Manach

In a European context in that period post-WWI, in a line from the French borders to the sea of Japan no old government was in power*. It was a time of chaos and disorder.

In Russia, the Orthodox as part of the old social order being deposed via "iron and blood" as Trotsky put it. This laid the ground for some of the worst human rights violations in history.

In Germany, there was a low-level civil war between Freikorps and pro-Communist forces which weaken the nascent Weimer government. Its Church policy was to hold Protestant and Catholic churches at arms length and failed to engender a sense of loyalty to the state.

In Ireland, a bitter civil war ended, the economic was in ruins and the state lacked a significant proportion of the vital records needed to run the country when the four courts were torched. By having a stabilising entity such as the Church present to re-establish Western civilised values such as respect for civil land would have prevented instabilty that could have flowed from a successful Curragh mutiny.

The pity was that the stable social conservative values were not matched by a free-market ideology that could have benefited with free trade relationships with the British empire.

*"A world on fire" - A Read.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I wonder the reasons for this. It must have benefitted the British to allow this otherwise they would have fought it more than they did.

The French Revolution had a powerful effect on British affairs in Ireland [and elsewhere] and there was a push to stop Irishmen from going to France to study for the priesthood and coming home 'radicalised'. So the establishment of Maynooth in the 1790s with British money was one of the ways of keeping the Irish Catholic church in Ireland and within the control - or even the obligation - of the British. A beholden Irish Catholic Church was therefore something to encourage. But there were limits on how much to allow it to grow. Catholic lay education was a factor that took time to establish.

There were also number of other contributing factors going on in the early to mid nineteenth century that saw the rise of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Ordinary Catholic tenants, farmers, tradesmen had been contributing 'tithes' to the established church, the Church of Ireland. So there was little inclination, or money, that could be spared for their own church. The lack of church buildings prior to the nineteenth century is a testimony to the poverty of the church during that time. But this began to change in the early nineteenth century especially after the Tithe War ambushes which wearied the British out of bothering to collect tithes - and the disestablishment of the C of I killed it all anyway. So money began to flow more to the Catholic Church coffers.

Then we have Paul Cullen - later Cardinal - arriving on the scene fresh from his education in Rome and concerned that the Irish Church lacked organisation [read Roman organisation] - which it very much did. The Synod of Thurles in the summer of 1850 began the job of making Irish Catholics conform to a more Roman style in practices and devotions.

This Synod also established the Catholic University of Ireland which opened in 1854 - although initially the British government would not recognise the degrees from this university nor give any state financial support. This did not change until 1880.

Emmett Larkin in his "Historical Dimensions of Irish Catholicism" gives figures for how the Catholic Church grew in the nineteenth century. The figures for Church attendance are staggering - prior to the Famine Mass attendance was around 30%. After the Famine it soared within 50 years to 90%.

Reekwind

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not sure that I agree with ‘the wealthy elite who recoiled at the 'excesses' and radicalism of the War of Independence years’ – several of the wealthy elite were actively involved (including some of my forebears - well, they had style, if only some money;) ). For example, Kevin Barry was schooled at Belvedere, (as was William Martin Murphy); James O’Mara the Home Rule MP & Sinn Fein TD was an old Clongonian, as were Irish Volunteers' founder The O’Rahilly and P. Pearse’s friend Fr. William Hackett; Dick Humphries also was Clongowes/St. Enda’s. Dev was educated at Blackrock, as was Liam O’Flaherty

Ah, but there were distinctions and fissures within the independence movement. Obviously this is broad stroke history, and doesn't account for the actions of individuals, but the 'revolutionaries' who triumphed in the Civil War tended to be socially and politically conservative. It was them who the Church and business leaders rallied around

There was an alternative strain to the independence movement though, one based around the rural grassroots and urban labour organisations. This was largely destroyed during the Civil War of subsumed into the Free State mainstream but it did terrify local and national Church/business leaders

boynesider wrote:

Italy for example was quite different

Not really. The Italian state was established on a firmly secular basis in the mid-19th C. And established over the corpse of the Papal States - Italian armies seized Rome and other Papal territories through force of arms. The state education system, etc, date from the same period. Italy is perfectly in line with the rest of Europe in that regard

What happened in the 1930s was a reversal of these policies by fascist or conservative dictators. This was part of the the intense pan-European conservative backlash against liberal thought. In fact, while Germany, Spain and Italy were dismantling their republican orders (and even the USSR was banning the foxtrot) Ireland was well ahead of the rest in already possessing a thoroughly conservative political and social order

Absolutely. There is a tendency amongst many people to falsely view Modern Ireland's interweavement with a particular organised religion as something not only unique, but uniquely shameful within a wider European context.

I'd suggest that drawing a comparison with Fascist Italy is not going to help alleviate this sense of shame...

Even in Italy there has not been anything like the diktats that McQuaid used to issue to the Dublin government. There was always a strong republican counter-current to religious encroachment. You won't find 90% of Italian primary schools being owned by the Church or contraception being illegal until the 1980s

Manach wrote:

In Russia, the Orthodox as part of the old social order being deposed via "iron and blood" as Trotsky put it. This laid the ground for some of the worst human rights violations in history

I'm just going to hone in on this part of what is a very clumsy narrative. Here you are contrasting the Orthodox Church - that bastion of the reactionary, anti-Semitic autocracy that was the Tsardom - with human rights abuses? Really?

To me this merely highlights the inherently reactionary role that organised role played in 19th C Europe and the degree to which this sparked militant anti-clerical campaigns to reverse this. Far from being a stabiliser, the stubborn refusal of the Church to move with the times, and its active allying with reactionary politicians, created immense social instability that regularly spilled over into violence

MarchDub

Reekwind wrote: »

Not really. The Italian state was established on a firmly secular basis in the mid-19th C. And established over the corpse of the Papal States - Italian armies seized Rome and other Papal territories through force of arms. The state education system, etc, date from the same period. Italy is perfectly in line with the rest of Europe in that regard

The Italian Concordant of 1929 governed much of Italian law regarding education - which essentially came under the control of the Catholic Church in 1929 - and even marriage laws came under its purview. In fact, even after WWII and the fall of fascism the Italian Constitution of 1947 specified in Article 7 that the 1929 law - referred to as the Lateran pacts- was to remain intact . It was not overturned until the Concordant of 1985 -- until then the Catholic Church essentially was in control of the public schools and religious instruction was compulsory.

By article 34 [of the Lateran pact of 1929] the state recognised the validity of Catholic marriage and its subjection to the provisions of canon law; nullity cases were therefore reserved to the ecclesiastical courts, and there could be no divorce.

The state agreed by article 36 of the concordat to promote religious instruction in the public primary and secondary schools and conceded to the bishops the right to appoint or dismiss those who imparted such instruction and to approve the textbooks that they used.

With the signing of the Concordant of 1985, Roman Catholicism was no longer the state religion of Italy. This change in status brought about a number of alterations in Italian society. Perhaps the most significant of these was the end to compulsory religious education in public schools.

The Birth Control fight in Italy took decades beginning in the early 1950s and it was a Supreme Court ruling in 1970 that eventually made contraception available. The Supreme Court had refused to allow contraception a few years previously.

Catholicism remained the official State religion until 1985.

CDfm

If you look at the Magdalen Launderies there is a connection with the Poor Law Guardian's etc, and the connections/links between the nun's nursing soldiers starting in the Crimea. Venereal disease kept soldiers off the battle field.

Education, well , again, the nuns trained the women teachers that went to the schools.

When Donogh O'Malley announced free secondary school education, (1967 without it being discussed at cabinet) it was at a time that a building programme for primary schools was in progress. Was he drunk, who knows, but the country did not have the money or infrastructure for it.


You can't really say that there was another delivery system in place.

Motor on a bit.

In the 1970's remittences from abroad still formed a huge part of national income and were called "invisible earnings". Pounds and dollars posted home from abroad every week or month.

Ireland did not have the money for the infrastructure people are talking about.


I think people have mad idea's that Ireland was anything else than a "post industrial" society (developing country) any different than any other society.

I can see the political argument's and theories but also can see issues such as abject poverty and emigration on a massive scale over 120 years -1850 -1970.

I often think that if people want to compare Ireland to other countries they should choose places like Serbia or the smaller Balkan States as comparitors.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

When Donogh O'Malley announced free secondary school education, (1967 without it being discussed at cabinet) it was at a time that a building programme for primary schools was in progress. Was he drunk, who knows, but the country did not have the money or infrastructure for it.

I remember the moment very well. Most people were stunned at the announcement - I had gone to secondary school some years earlier because my parents paid for it and was one of very few kids at my primary school who did go.

I know we have all read and are well versed about the downside to the education system but it has to be said that the religious orders did also contribute in a positive way to Ireland having a decent educational system on very low tax funding.

The country was strapped for a tax base - and, this is often forgotten, the religious orders put together an educational system with mostly their own purses and the ordinary nun, priest and brother worked for practically nothing to educate kids. The Primary schools could not have operated without the religious contribution - and some of the secondary schools, especially those run by the Brothers, had very low charges again because the Brothers and Priests worked for practically nothing.

CDfm wrote: »

In the 1970's remittences from abroad still formed a huge part of national income and were called "invisible earnings". Pounds and dollars posted home from abroad every week or month.

Actually that was going on for decades prior to this also.

CDfm wrote: »

Ireland did not have the money for the infrastructure people are talking about.


I think people have mad idea's that Ireland was anything else than a "post industrial" society (developing country) any different than any other society.

I can see the political argument's and theories but also can see issues such as abject poverty and emigration on a massive scale over 120 years -1850 -1970.

I often think that if people want to compare Ireland to other countries they should choose places like Serbia or the smaller Balkan States as comparitors.

My memories of the 1950s and 60s were that people felt that the country was doing considerably better in many ways than pre-independence - but there was a strong sense that independence itself was considered a value something that later generations seem willing to forfeit so easily.

But remember many adults at that time had lived through all of it so had vivid memories of the struggle involved and the price that had to be paid in blood and sweat to establish a nation.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

My memories of the 1950s and 60s were that people felt that the country was doing considerably better in many ways than pre-independence - but there was a strong sense that independence itself was considered a value something that later generations seem willing to forfeit so easily.

But remember many adults at that time had lived through all of it so had vivid memories of the struggle involved and the price that had to be paid in blood and sweat to establish a nation.

And a vote was considered valuable, and a referendum a grave and serious matter. Politicians will not discuss things like values.

It now seems we have become very statist and there is a lack of integrity and an ideological vacuum.

This in a way that is very undemocratic too.

thecommietommy

Manach wrote: »

Stability. That the Church contributed in a positive way to a stable democratic state - in terms of embracing a common cultural belief system and acting as a damper on fissionable tendancies that blighted nearly all other revolutions.

Interesting, maybe you could elaborate on the Catholic Church ( CC ) role ?

1) Stability. That the Church contributed in a positive way to a stable democratic state - that the CC knew how to keep the Irish peasents in their place lest they should be influenced by Tone, Emmet, the IRB etc or try and stop food leaving Ireland during the famine ?

And as for a " democratic state ", I would have thought Ireland was as voluntary a part of the British state and free to leave when it liked as say, Latvia or Lithuania were of the Soviet state ?

Once the ill-judged path to independence was trodden, the Church had provided a measure of the social structures that was present both in Ireland and abroad that eased the transitions of economic emigrants that fled the state's early attempts at Autarky and engaging in economic warfare with a world power in the 30s.

" the ill-judged path to independence" Do you not think it was well judged as the 26 county's became one of the most CC influenced country's in the world ?

CDfm

Interesting user name thecommietommy

Welcome on board

On the history side of it I started a few threads because I found the info difficult to come by.

(Irish) Socialism & Marxism versus the (Irish) Catholic Church & Jack Murphy TD

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056333127

Nuns -Scary,Powerful & Irish.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056297784

Now , the history isn't always clear cut but Brother Walfrid/Andrew Kerins who started Glasgow Celtic Football Club was hardly motivated by any world domination urges.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74156381&postcount=130

Manach

thecommietommy wrote: »

Interesting, maybe you could elaborate on the Catholic Church ( CC ) role ?

1) Stability. That the Church contributed in a positive way to a stable democratic state - that the CC knew how to keep the Irish peasents in their place lest they should be influenced by Tone, Emmet, the IRB etc or try and stop food leaving Ireland during the famine ?

And as for a " democratic state ", I would have thought Ireland was as voluntary a part of the British state and free to leave when it liked as say, Latvia or Lithuania were of the Soviet state ?

" the ill-judged path to independence" Do you not think it was well judged as the 26 county's became one of the most CC influenced country's in the world ?

Firstly as per OP - the timeframe involved would be Ireland post independence. Saying that, I've not come across a work that suggested the Church was involved with food exports during the famine. Could you link?

I'm not a Soviet constitutional expert, but my reading of "A History of Communism" by Brown suggests that Latvia or Lithuania would not have been practically allowed to leave the USSR.

During the independence period, there was major upheavals worldwide. In Russia during the civil wars alone, 10 Million died - "World on Fire"- A. Read. Nearly all countries which have undergone a violent transition in political systems have suffered post-revoltuionary oscillation in repression. For instance in the independent USA, more people fled that country for political reasons than Revolutionary France (source whose name escapes me, but I think it was "A short history of the world").

The Church I contend was one of the social dampeners of this fissible behaviour of the newly formed state

CDfm

Manach wrote: »

The Church I contend was one of the social dampeners of this fissible behaviour of the newly formed state

What would you say to the church in Ireland being the original revolutionaries.

They were the practical ones with healthcare,education & welfare programmes that were not a public good at the time.They provided services that were not available otherwise.

Also, education and the teaching profession is normally the first step up the social ladder for a smart peasant.

Now I am not hung up on the relgious part of it at all and no-one would pick on the Roman's for their belief in Jupiter. People have had beliefs for ever.

Archbishop Walsh in Dublin in 1916 refused to go to the GPO or to condemn the rebels.

MarchDub

Manach wrote: »

For instance in the independent USA, more people fled that country for political reasons than Revolutionary France (source whose name escapes me, but I think it was "A short history of the world").

The Church I contend was one of the social dampeners of this fissible behaviour of the newly formed state

I agree that there is frequently much upheaval and disorder in many new independent states. And Ireland avoided that - except for the half finished business in the Northern Ireland statelet . But I want to answer you re the American experience.

You are correct that many of the original 'Loyalists' left the US after the Revolutionary War but this number was about 20% of the whole - and comprised mostly the elite wealthy classes from New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Also, this departure actually is seen by American historians as having an eventual good as it got rid of what Gordon Wood in his book "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" described as the old Feudal system of wealth concentrated in a few loyalist aristocrats. Within five years of the revolution there the "new men" of humbler origins had become rich merchants and were more favourable to republicanism and democracy than monarchy. Thus it helped American democracy, the thesis goes, that the older elites chose to leave.

Oddly when we address the exact same behaviour here - of former elites departing after independence - many see it as somehow a negative on the new Free State who are described in some quarters as being 'responsible' for this departure. Whereas it is a common occurrence for the 'losers' on the side of any independence battle to want to leave.

Manach

Prior to doing a university course where the matter was part of the curriculum, I'd not known of the fate of such loyalists. My understanding is that as "losers" a significant proportion of them emigrated to areas still under imperial control.
However, the percentages of old-school fedualist would have been low in comparison to other classes of loyalists - such as survivors of nasty guerrilla wars on the frontier that approached a Balkan level of infighting, and ex slaves who the US tried to re-enslave. The British refused to hand them over. (Not that there subsequent fate in Novia Scotia was that much of an improvement).
Given that such an elite moved mostly to Canada, that country was enriched by their presence.

Again, this type of exile did occurred in Ireland - but not with the same level of bitterness. A case in point, the Anglo-Irish officer William Evelyn Wylie who prosectuted the Easter leaders was latter appointed a high court judge in this Jurisdiction . This shows a level of restrain, stability in the new leaders of the country and a willingness to work with the old elite.


Finally, in the context of this thread I'd regard the Church as evolutionists ( ) and not revolutionaries - as per Danial O'Connell's non-violent approach to civil reform.

CDfm

I am just wondering was the rise in the catholic power due to emancipation and protestant migration

Protestant Emigration from Ireland

From Dublin University Magazine Vol. I, No. V, May 1833

We are fallen upon evil days. Abroad thrones have been shaking — sceptres and diadems are breaking — dynasties are changing, and constitutions are vanishing away; at home all the time-honoured and time-nurtured must give way to the novel and ideal, for the spirit of change has breathed over all things, and while she rides in her rampant chariot against the throne of kings and the ark of God, all that we prize and love in the institutions of our country is to be dragged at her wheels, dishonoured in the dust. We are indeed fallen upon evil days; but of all the elements of evils that are now overshadowing the protestant interest of Ireland, there is none that in the desolation and utter hopelessness of despair, can compete with that giant evil, the threatened emigration of the protestant population.
The number of Protestants, who have emigrated from Ireland during the last few years is as follows: in 1829, 12,000; in 1830, 21,000; 1831, 29,500; in 1832, 31,500, making a total of 94,000, during the short space of four years! Nor is this all — the evil is gradually increasing, the stream is widening its banks every successive year, so as to promise to exhaust before long the whole protestant population by its increasing drain; it is a slowly consuming and wasting malady that is working its noiseless and secret way through the land; and as consumption in the human form pales the cheek of beauty and prostrates the strength of youth, and then gradually and almost imperceptibly draws its victim unresisting to the grave, so is this evil, breaking and rendering powerless the Protestant interest, and promises so to waste its once mighty energies, that day after day it becomes weaker and weaker, and so will, almost without a struggle, vanish from the land.


http://www.libraryireland.com/articles/emigration/index.php

And ,of course, the famine let everyone know how badly off they really were.

The church sort of found itself in that position.

Lewis Topography 1837 on-line sort of shows that education was on the up.

http://www.libraryireland.com/topog/

So how much was church and how much aspirations of the people themselves. For example, the church did not create the famine or emigration .

CDfm

For such a Catholic country, things that need explaining are

Lets go down to Monto - Dublin c 1900 what would you

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66971965

Others are, Parnell's popularity and the acceptance of Roger Casement's homosexuality. Indeed, we did not have prosecutions for homosexuality as there were in the UK. Covered here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71125722

Now I know things weren't perfect but it begs more than a few questions.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

For such a Catholic country, things that need explaining are

Lets go down to Monto - Dublin c 1900 what would you

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66971965

Monto has great relevance to this threads title. Was it the state or the church that closed the brothels down:

How Monto came to be a red-light district is unknown -- most likely because of its proximity to the docks ("sailors two a penny") -- but its demise is well documented. That happened within only a few years of the foundation of the State and the accession to power of the Roman Catholic church. The church's lay stormtroopers, the Legion of Mary, did the job, led by its inquisitor-in-chief, Frank Duff. War was declared on Monto. The new Catholic state stormed into action and a force of gardai and legionnaires raided Monto at midnight on March 12, 1925, and literally threw the women working there out on to the street and into the Church-run slave-labour laundries. Offended Catholic sensibilities were put right and the women were cast out.
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/independent-woman/love-sex/redlight-alert-2615112.html

OK so its newspaper accounts but here is more detail:

For Monto the end was ushered in by a man named Frank Duff – the harbinger of the Madams’ downfall.

“Duff decided that there was a need to seek out the women in their lodgings to try to persuade them to abandon prostitution,” Terry explains. Even though the likes of Madam Oblong proved as hard to move as her cold heart, slowly but surely the brothels fell and what was to become the Legion of Mary grew. Endgame crept nearer.

“The final closure of the brothels took place in 1925, during Lent,” Terry explains. “The Legion decided to take on the Madams once and for all.

A date was set for the shutters to fully come down on Monto. A large-scale police raid was organised – kicking off at midnight on March 12, 1925.

“Duff heard that some of the cops were still under the remaining Madams’ thumbs and they were going to be less than diligent in exercising their duty. He tracked down the General to warn him, and in turn the General told the Superintendent that ‘heads would roll’ if the raid did not go ahead as planned.”

The coppers took heed of their superior. That night a convoy of police cars and lorries blazed into Monto. Hundreds were arrested, clients and Madams alike.

The following Sunday a solemn blessing of Monto was organised by the Legion. A procession joined – and watched – by hundreds wound its way towards Monto at the head of which was a simple crucifix carried by Duff.

Terry describes the end of an era. “They blessed each house and on each door they nailed a picture of the Sacred Heart. When they got to the back wall of the Corporation Buildings they stopped and a chair was placed on top of a table. Frank Duff mounted the chair and hammered a spike into the wall as high as he could and hung up the crucifix.”

The people had reclaimed Monto. http://www.hotpress.com/archive/2658236.html

In general I find it hard to argue with the point about establishing stability. This was important after the civil war. In this era we had the Russian revolution, Spanish civil war, trouble in Germany culminating in Nazi government and WWII, Armenia, Turkey, India, etc, i.e. much unrest. Ireland largely escaped this and the church was a part of that.

Manach

To followup on CDfm point about things that need explaining - this social scenario was also present in other countries - perhaps to their benefit.
For instance, in an excellent book about pre-WWI Vienna, "A Nervous Splendour" the author mentioned the Catholic piety of the Emperor and some sections of society.
This co-existed with a very progressive, avant-garde bohemian mindset which was a world leader in arts and analysis with luminaries such as Freud and Klimt.
Overall, (IMHO) there are many differing strands in society than help make the tapestry of life interesting.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Monto has great relevance to this threads title. Was it the state or the church that closed the brothels down:

OK so its newspaper accounts but here is more detail:

There are many explanations for what happened other than the catholic church.

I mean could you argue that the Curragh Wrens were better off than the women who went to the Magdalen Launderies established by the Poor Law Guardians.

Look here

http://www.curragh.info/articles/wrens.htm



Wasn't Monto the largest Red Light District in Europe and wasn't it essentially tenements ?

Or was it supply and demand and comfort women for the British Military.

The clients were gone.

Was it slum clearence ?



In the 1920's you had prohibition in the USA so how were red light districts and prostitution dealt with elsewhere ?

In general I find it hard to argue with the point about establishing stability. This was important after the civil war. In this era we had the Russian revolution, Spanish civil war, trouble in Germany culminating in Nazi government and WWII, Armenia, Turkey, India, etc, i.e. much unrest. Ireland largely escaped this and the church was a part of that.

Or was it that the state could not provide education & healthcare as a public good ?

And, Ireland had mass emigration as a safety valve and it is valid to say that WW1 resulted in the political conditions for the Independence movement to succeed.

To say that the catholic church was the reason for Monto's demise is a huge stretch of the imagination.

Are there any reliable prostitution statistics available for Ireland ?

Manach wrote: »

To followup on CDfm point about things that need explaining - this social scenario was also present in other countries - perhaps to their benefit.
For instance, in an excellent book about pre-WWI Vienna, "A Nervous Splendour" the author mentioned the Catholic piety of the Emperor and some sections of society.
This co-existed with a very progressive, avant-garde bohemian mindset which was a world leader in arts and analysis with luminaries such as Freud and Klimt.
Overall, (IMHO) there are many differing strands in society than help make the tapestry of life interesting.

Also, everyone knows that the money outflows from Ireland to Britain had changed and the emerging welfare system was benefiting Ireland.

You can't really compare Ireland to Austria and Vienna ( except for O'Duffy ) .

To say Austria is a comparitor because it was catholic is a bit of a stretch. Did you not have Irish Crime gangs operating in the USA on par with the Mafia ?. Saints & scholars or pimps & bootleggers ?

thecommietommy

Manach wrote: »

Firstly as per OP - the timeframe involved would be Ireland post independence. Saying that, I've not come across a work that suggested the Church was involved with food exports during the famine. Could you link?

I'm not a Soviet constitutional expert, but my reading of "A History of Communism" by Brown suggests that Latvia or Lithuania would not have been practically allowed to leave the USSR.

During the independence period, there was major upheavals worldwide. In Russia during the civil wars alone, 10 Million died - "World on Fire"- A. Read. Nearly all countries which have undergone a violent transition in political systems have suffered post-revoltuionary oscillation in repression. For instance in the independent USA, more people fled that country for political reasons than Revolutionary France (source whose name escapes me, but I think it was "A short history of the world").

The Church I contend was one of the social dampeners of this fissible behaviour of the newly formed state

Apologies, I was taking your statement totally out of context.

CDfm

Maria Luddy of Maynooth looked at the prostitution topic in detail. Here she is in History Ireland.

Irish nationalists argued that prostitution and venereal disease were symptoms of the British presence in Ireland and that it was only with Irish independence that they would disappear. Apparent rises in the rates of illegitimacy, venereal diseases and sexual crime in the 1920s suggest the simple-mindedness of that view.

http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume16/issue3/features/?id=114227

Lets not forget that venereal disease was a huge problem for the British Army in the 19th century.

Also, diseases like syphilis were really awful before the advent of antibiotics.

snafuk35

The aims of many of the rebels of 1916 and the many who were in the IRA were that Ireland would be Gaelic Catholic and Free. Catholic infuence was there from the very beginning. De Valera and Collins were devout Catholics as were their entire generation.

jonniebgood1

That may be the reality but in 1916 the proclamation said "The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens".

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

That may be the reality but in 1916 the proclamation said "The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens".

And the main movers behind 1916 were the IRB and they were hardly altar boys and many protestants were involved. Sam Maguire who inducted Michael Collins into the IRB was protestant.

It is impossible to know the religious aspirations for any new state at the time and while the rising became associated with Sinn Fein it was a very bit player at the time.

That only happened when the political kicked in and indeed the extension of the franchise in 1918 to men over 21 and women over 30 in 1918 probably had something to do with it.

thecommietommy

CDfm wrote: »

Wasn't Monto the largest Red Light District in Europe and wasn't it essentially tenements ?

And then we had ' Saint ' Oliver J Flanagan saying that " their was no sex in Ireland before television "

thecommietommy

I think the below photo would just about sum up the self importance and arrogance of the Catholic Church in Ireland up until possibly the late 60's. It's like something out of the medieval era, I believe it's Ar$ebishop McQuaid -

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

I think the below photo would just about sum up the self importance and arrogance of the Catholic Church in Ireland up until possibly the late 60's. It's like something out of the medieval era, I believe it's Ar$ebishop McQuaid -

But Ireland was not an industrialized nation but a " developing economy" with high levels of emigration.

You just can't change Ireland into something it wasn't, following independence Ireland was still the piss poor place it had been prior to their departure.

Independence did not cure all life's problems.

HavingCrack

snafuk35 wrote: »

The aims of many of the rebels of 1916 and the many who were in the IRA were that Ireland would be Gaelic Catholic and Free. Catholic infuence was there from the very beginning. De Valera and Collins were devout Catholics as were their entire generation.

While De Valera was staunchly Catholic the religious beliefs of Collins are not as clear cut. I remember reading a first hand account from the Easter Rising which recorded Collins as mocking people who started praying when the GPO was ablaze (I think I read that in Tim Pat Coogan's biography of Collins, I'll double check). He certainly wasn't a regular Mass attendee either. On the whole his Catholicism was a little bit suspect for that time in Ireland, he certainly was not devout by an means.

On the topic of that generation Connolly was probably an atheist until his death bed while the rest of the Citizen Army were socialists, not people known for sympathy to Catholicism or religion in general at the time.

Cathal Brugha was not known for overt displays of religion either. Griffith is a strange one, while his hatred of Freemasons and Jews in his younger years was well known (both indicators of Catholicism) I can't seem to find any books that make reference to his religion.

Interestingly, with the exception of De Valera all these men died.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

The French Revolution had a powerful effect on British affairs in Ireland [and elsewhere] and there was a push to stop Irishmen from going to France to study for the priesthood and coming home 'radicalised'. So the establishment of Maynooth in the 1790s with British money was one of the ways of keeping the Irish Catholic church in Ireland and within the control - or even the obligation - of the British. A beholden Irish Catholic Church was therefore something to encourage. But there were limits on how much to allow it to grow. Catholic lay education was a factor that took time to establish.

The British had tried to rule through Protestantism and this failed. They then tried to rule through Catholicism and this helped establish the Church into a position of power before Ireland became independence. The change in attitude from penal laws to state co-operation is interesting from both the Catholic church and the states points of view.

CDfm

HavingCrack wrote: »

On the topic of that generation Connolly was probably an atheist until his death bed while the rest of the Citizen Army were socialists, not people known for sympathy to Catholicism or religion in general at the time.

We know very little about Connolly's beliefs and I don't think that socialists were known to be anti religion at the time.

And some of the Citizen Army were suffragettes .

The idea that Larkin and Connolly were Scottish was not really publicised either.

I tried to address beliefs here on Jack Murphy

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056333127

There is a lot of variation between what socialist histories say and others say.

The reason I raised this before is that I knew a few very religious trade unionists growing up.It does not make sense to me that this was a belief system that they held so I can't see it being current at the time -1916 - if it wasn't current 25 and 30 years ago.

So maybe these beliefs existed in extreme groups like the CPI.Is there a bit of revisionism going on as there seems to have been with Jack Murphy's life story ?

Pagan O'Leary and the IRB/Fenians were more than likely to be anti church than Socialists at that time as they were members of a secret society.

http://www.astonisher.com/archives/mjb/irishlit/irishlit_ch10.html

Bannasidhe

snafuk35 wrote: »

The aims of many of the rebels of 1916 and the many who were in the IRA were that Ireland would be Gaelic Catholic and Free. Catholic infuence was there from the very beginning. De Valera and Collins were devout Catholics as were their entire generation.

I would very much disagree that the return of 'Gaelic' Ireland was ever desired. Gaelic Ireland was a secular, decentralised, socially liberal, sexually promiscuous society which gave women extensive rights not to be seen again in Ireland until we joined the E.U and they made us legislate against discrimination.

If you mean they wanted a State based on a manufactured pseudo - history which is a unsubstantiated concoction of eternal and all embracing Irish Catholicism combined with Celtic twilight nonsense peddled as Irish history then I would agree - that is what they wanted.

I seriously doubted that is what James Connolly - the man most directly responsible for 1916 wanted.

Wild Bill

As an agnostic, this is my take on the RC Church/Free State relationship:

It's a bit like radical Islam in Arabia.

Catholicism was a rallying point, a flag, a badge, a refuge, a source of morale and a promise of ultimate victory in times of endless defeat - for the Irish who opposed invasion, cultural genocide and settlements.

After (partial) independence the Church were thus poised to dominate the State; bit like the Islamists after the Arab Spring.

It takes a while to shake them off; but temporary rule by religious nutters is a very small price to pay for freedom from imperialism and genocide.

Wild Bill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gaelic Ireland was a secular, decentralised, socially liberal, sexually promiscuous society which gave women extensive rights not to be seen again in Ireland until we joined the E.U and they made us legislate against discrimination.

That is so true. Unfortunately the Gaelic civilization you describe was headed the way of the Tasmanian aboriginals if they didn't adapt to the reality of overwhelming power.

They found a tool in the form of the internationally powerful RC Church - and used it to good effect.

Bannasidhe

Wild Bill wrote: »

That is so true. Unfortunately the Gaelic civilization you describe was headed the way of the Tasmanian aboriginals if they didn't adapt to the reality of overwhelming power.

They found a tool in the form of the internationally powerful RC Church - and used it to good effect.

I disagree I'm afraid. I believe the RCC co-opted Irish nationalism and created a false history which allowed it to appear to be the saviour of the Irish people when in fact it was a co-oppressor and colonist in it's own right.

Extensive research into the Norman invasion of the 12th century has lead me to the conclusion is that the church of Rome was up to its eyeballs in justifying it. As originally conceived it was an attempt by Rome to use military force to coerce the Gaelic Church into toeing the line. The tool it sought to employ was Henry II of England and the Norman Conquest of Ireland. It's ploy backfired when Henry VIII later broke with Rome with devastating repercussions for Ireland.

One of the most insidious and destructive of these false premises promulgated by a RCC controlled education system, IMHO, is that Irish = Catholic - I certainly would not be the only historian to view this falsehood as a serious and divisive 'flaw' at the heart of our constructed national identity.
In today's Irish TimesDiarmaid Ferriter hit the nail on the head when he wrote about the creation of an Irish State with

society so homogeneously Catholic, abrogating responsibility to the Catholic church in too many crucial areas, including education

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0326/1224313893518.html?via=mr

By allowing the Catholic Church to control education, the State allowed that organisation to define what it means to be 'Irish' and to ignore or downplay it's own role in the conquest of Ireland and the role played by non-Catholics in the centuries of struggle for Irish independence.

Lets look briefly at the facts of the conquest - although Pope Adrian's 1155 Papal Bull Laudabilitor is now believed to have been a forgery - Pope Alexander III did confirm it in 1172 - so in effect the Papacy granted legitimacy to the overlordship of Ireland by the Monarch of England http://www.libraryireland.com/HullHistory/Appendix1a.php.
Why? Because the Gaelic Church was not following the rules as laid down by Rome - it existed as a quasi-independent rival power base and was therefore a threat to the holy grail of religious homogenisation.

In structure the Gaelic Church was completely monastic and, for reasons that remain unclear, seems to have owed more in terms of its organisation and ethos to the Egyptian Coptic Church then it did to Rome.

The Gaelic Church did not evangelize. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Since at least the 6th century Rome believed that in order for the Second Coming of Christ and Judgement Day (deemed to be good things) to occur all the people's of the world must not just be Christian, but believe exactly the same things. This was the impetus behind Pope Gregory I's evangelical missions across Europe - Gregory was determined to spread a homogeneous, Roman, form of Christianity across Europe. This belief persisted after the Reformation - Luther was very PO'd when everyone didn't automatically convert to his new improved Christianity - he blamed the Jews...

In Gaelic Christian Europe (Ireland, Scotland and parts of northern England) the church was content to let people come to it ( vocations)- rather then go out and 'get' them (you are whatever religion your prince is/forced baptisms count).

The result in Ireland was that Gaelic society was secular. Brehon Law was the dominant legal code and even a cursory read of Kelly's Guide to Early Irish Law shows that Gaelic Ireland was sexually liberal, granted extensive rights to women, and was based completely on civil, not religious, imperatives.
For some strange reason we are not taught about this thing we should be boasting about in school....

Conflict had existed between Ireland and Rome from the beginning -in the 7th century the Synod of Whitby brought Rome and the Gaelic Church into direct opposition. In the 12th century there was a potential schism within Ireland between the Roman 'reformers' such as St Malachy and the Gaelic traditionalists. In was within this context that the Papacy moved against the Gaelic Church traditionalists in an effort to bring it into line with Rome.

Although political events - the possibility that Strongbow, de Lacy etc may create 'kingdoms' in Ireland was considered a real possibility - forced Henry II to come here and impose his authority upon his feudal subjects, the fact remains that the Papacy gave legitimacy to the Norman conquest after the creation of the Lordship of Ireland.

Rome gave us to England. Not once, not twice, but three times.

When Henry VIII broke with Rome that undermined this legitimacy forcing Henry to create the Kingdom of Ireland - Henry declared himself king of the entire island, including areas that had never been under English control such as Tir Connell, Umhall, Iar Chonnacht, Beara, etc it must be noted that this was the first time in history that Ireland was united as a single kingdom under a central authority.

A united Ireland is both a Tudor concept and an enforced English imposition.

In the 1550s the Papacy regranted and relegitimised this control during the reign of Mary I - the same Catholic Mary Tudor who introduced Plantations to Ireland.

This policy was continued by her sister Elizabeth and her cousin James Stuart - who oversaw the Plantation of Ulster and the influx of Scots Presbyterians - whose descendants invented Irish Republicanism.

The events of 1798 were inspired by the French Revolution - not religion. Westminster responded with the Act of Union - with the full support of the RCC.

Events in 1848 grew out of the Famine and the Revolutions spreading across Europe. In both '98 and '48 most of the leaders were from Protestant backgrounds. In both cases Rome utterly condemned these 'anarchists'.

The impetus behind the 1916 Rising was the Socialist Connolly and the Citizen's Army. What was the response of the RCC to the war for Irish independence? It excommunicated republicans.

But - because the RCC is allowed to control education it is able to spin history and portray itself as the driving force behind Irish Independence - it rebranded it as a war of Religious freedom (non-Catholics need not apply)- not the desire for political self-determination. The RCC did not want self-determination - it wanted us to be controlled by Rome rather then Westminster.

In our 'under the patronage of the Bishop' National schools we are instructed in fidelity to the RCC not the State. IMHO our State schools should be teaching civics and ethics not religion -perhaps then we might breed a generation of politicos who understand duty to the State and what it means to serve the people.

MarchDub

Wild Bill wrote: »

That is so true. Unfortunately the Gaelic civilization you describe was headed the way of the Tasmanian aboriginals if they didn't adapt to the reality of overwhelming power.

They found a tool in the form of the internationally powerful RC Church - and used it to good effect.

Actually the history of the Catholic Church itself in Ireland is an interesting one and not what you might expect. So we could also consider the influence of Irish Gaelic life on early Irish Catholicism.

From the earliest times of Christianity being established the Irish church was more 'Gaelic' than Roman - and like the description that Bannasidhe gives of Gaelic life, the church formed more along those lines than the European/Roman model. Ireland developed a monastic model for Christianity early on, and not the urban Roman diocesan model - but they were monastic families, with married Abbots passing the monastery along to sons. Bishops - those without any monastic connection - were virtually powerless - unlike the Roman model. And there is evidence that women held powerful positions with the possibility of some Abbesses holding the title of Bishop.

Even after the so called twelfth century reforms of the Irish Church, some things did not conform to Rome and there is evidence that married clergy continued on into Tudor times.

Wild Bill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Extensive research into the Norman invasion of the 12th century has lead me to the conclusion is that the church of Rome was up to its eyeballs in justifying it.

We know that!

I'm talking from the Reformation and after.

Official Islam has sold out Arab nationalism for centuries; that's beside the point.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

perhaps then we might breed a generation of politicos who understand duty to the State and what it means to serve the people.

Mental note to self to explain corporate statism & party whips to teenage daughter.

Bannasidhe

Wild Bill wrote: »

We know that!

I'm talking from the Reformation and after.

The Papacy reconfirmed English control of Ireland to Mary Tudor - this was after the Reformation and the opening salvo in the Counter-Reformation.

What actual steps did Rome take exactly to support Irish independence that were not part of it's intrigues in England? The limited support - Papal troops at Dún an Óir, coercion of the Spanish to interfere in Ireland as a way of attacking Elizabeth - was part of a ploy to regain England, not to free Ireland from the control of the English throne but to ensure a Catholic sat on that throne.
The Stuarts after the Restoration were considered dangerously open to Catholics. James II converted to Catholicism. James brought his war to our shores - would Ireland have Scottish king of England or a Dutch king of England was our monarch. That was what they fought for. Or do you think that had James won he would have granted Irish independence? Do you think Rome would have urged him too? I don't - I think Rome would have been content to maintain the status quo as long as England was part of it's dominion.

What role did the RCC play in 1798? It condemned revolutionaries - it's main concern however was with France.

Did the RCC advocate Ireland remain outside the Union in 1800/1801? No. It threw it's vocal support behind the Act of Union in exchange for concessions of the Penal Laws and an extensive programme of church building.

Where was the RCC in 1848? It was condemning anarchists who sought to impose democracy, break-up Imperialist Empires and allow small ethnic groups self-determination.

Where was it in the War of Independence? It was excommunicating republicans and condemning the war from the pulpit.

Rome and Westminster reached an accommodation in the late 18th century- yes, there was pushing and shoving and the prize was control of Ireland. At no point did the wishes of the Irish people enter into this super-power struggle. Rome - the greatest spin doctors the world has ever seen - managed to parley Irish Independence into a victory for them. Ireland was handed to them on a plate when we let them control education.

People believe Roman Catholicism was an ally and supporter of Irish Independence because that is what we are taught in school.

Who has controlled education since the formation of the State? Could it be...the Roman Catholic Church??????

Wild Bill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

People believe Roman Catholicism was an ally and supporter of Irish Independence because that is what we are taught in school.

Who has controlled education since the formation of the State? Could it be...the Roman Catholic Church??????

I'm not disagreeing with any of what you say; the institutional RC church was as traitorous and indifferent/hostile to Irish/Gaelic sovereignty as suited it's geopolitical interests. I recall having serious rows with my religious parents and teachers on this very issue when the North was in flames in the early 1970s!

But that didn't prevent the people from clinging to it as a refuge; just like oppressed Arabs do today (not to the RC church, obviously!)

And it left the RC very well position to control the Free State.

Another analogy might be with the "liberation theology" Church in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s which was betrayed by the Vatican and JPII at the behest of the Americans.